::::I tend to be in the distinct minority these days in that I believe the ODI is the best format. I definitely like my tests, particularly the fact that they ebb and flow over a period of 5 days (3 for New Zealand) but its too hard to watch much of them. T20's I find incredibly dull and silly. You simply can't compare a bit of slash dash with all the drama and intrigue of a gripping second innings like yesterdays. ODI is definitely our best format, although I note we are still ranked 8th in them. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:14, 17 February 2013 (EST)

::::I tend to be in the distinct minority these days in that I believe the ODI is the best format. I definitely like my tests, particularly the fact that they ebb and flow over a period of 5 days (3 for New Zealand) but its too hard to watch much of them. T20's I find incredibly dull and silly. You simply can't compare a bit of slash dash with all the drama and intrigue of a gripping second innings like yesterdays. ODI is definitely our best format, although I note we are still ranked 8th in them. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:14, 17 February 2013 (EST)

::::: It would be interesting to see how a dual T20 (2 innings each, basically ODI/T20 hybrid) international would play out. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:30, 17 February 2013 (EST)

::::: It would be interesting to see how a dual T20 (2 innings each, basically ODI/T20 hybrid) international would play out. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:30, 17 February 2013 (EST)

+

::::::Didn't you guys try that out in your domestic 50 overs competition a few years back? How did it work? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:24, 17 February 2013 (EST)

+

+

== Thanks mate ==

+

DJ, I genuinely do appreciate the fact that you defended me. The funny thing is that I never even realized that I had been blocked before, until that particular conversation on Andy's talk page popped up! I had no clue. Honestly, I can see how ''some'' editors here could consider my actions as "trolling", but I believe this may be due to the way I approach "controversial" issues.

+

+

It's not very hard to get out of people WHAT they believe, the trick is figuring out WHY they think that way. So, I have no problem with admins editing entries to include what they believe, but when they don't include the reasons why... it gets my hackles up. I guess everybody has their weaknesses. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:19, 18 February 2013 (EST)

+

:No worries. I agree with that sometimes senior people here post things that they haven't really considered properly. No need to go overboard on it though, which might have been why you were banned for so long. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 05:57, 18 February 2013 (EST)

+

+

==DonnyC==

+

The offending edit in question is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=1036893 this]. This kind of relatively mild snark would get a first time offender a warning only, but Donny is no first time offender. Already before the recent block he managed to incur [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ADonnyC five blocks] for activities such as trolling, rudeness toward others, 90/10 rule violation and spamming. Notice that even you agreed with me one time that his behavior was block worthy (see the blocks Donny received on February 16). The fact that you did not revoke his block but merely shortened it suggests that your disagreement with me was not about whether or not Donny's behavior was blockowrthy, but only about the length of the block. In light of his past behavior, the only problem I have with the current block is that it's too short. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 03:58, 27 February 2013 (EST)

+

:That edit is fine. Nothing even remotely wrong with it. They are having a discussion about the correct translation of a particular Hebrew word and Donny has added to it. My shortening of his block should not be read as meaning that I agreed with it even slightly. You appear to have something of a vendetta against DonnyC, and I don't know why, nor do I care. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 04:18, 27 February 2013 (EST)

+

::This conversation is over, I have nothing more to say to you after that moronic block you gave me. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

+

:::Good. I want nothing to do with a bully like you. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 04:32, 27 February 2013 (EST)

+

+

==re:DonnyC==

+

Wait, am I seeing what I think I'm seeing? DamianJohn? On my talk page? I thought he didn't want anything to do with a bully like me... Anyway, Donny earned his ban fair and square. He used a direct insult against Conservative by calling him a conglomerate and accusing him of being deceitful and pretentious. Seeing that he has been given in the past several different blocks from several different users (all blocks were found to be justified), and seeing that I gave him a [[User talk:DonnyC#Warning|warning]] about his incivility before the recent block, a month long ban is quite justified.

+

+

However, I'm a willing to make a deal with you. Since I gather you might have more influence on Donny than me, I won't reinstate his ban the next time you overturn it if you'll warn him about engaging in any further acts of incivility. So long as he'll behave he won't need to fear me, but one violation of the rules of the encyclopedia will get him a lifetime ban.

+

+

And finally, so far the only complaint Andy had about the blocks I have given was [[User talk:Markman#Great blocks |this]], so I guess I'm doing my job just fine. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)

+

:The point is that Conservative is a bit of a playful sysop who enjoys a bit of cut and thrust in argument. He insults people and people insult him back, no harm no foul. If this place were as sterile and as lifeless as you seem to want to make it, even less people would edit here than they currently do. Besides, DonnyC was correct, Conservatives arguments were unsubstantiated non sequitors.

+

:The even larger point however is that you are interfering in a conversation that does not concern you. Conservative is perfectly capable of blocking Donny if he took offence - you are not the moral arbiter of what is right and wrong with the world.

+

:On your last point about Andy being happy with your blocks, well he did shorten your last block of Donny to almost nothing, and Karajou fortunately overruled your last attempt at killjoy over the North Pole puns (another example of you picking a fight for no good reason). It may be that you are not as good at picking up on subtext as you think you are.

+

:Why don't you just relax and not worry at all about things that do not concern you? You keep editing the bible project or whatever it is you like to do, I will keep editing my legal articles when I get a chance and save everyone the aggravation of all these threats which serve no good purpose whatsoever. I think you are reading the guidelines far too literally and strictly. People will only edit here if the environment is enjoyable, and for some reason you seem determined to make the place as unpleasant for everyone as you possibly can. I will have another word with DonnyC if you like. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:35, 3 March 2013 (EST)

+

::Thank you, DamianJohn, for once again taking up my defense. I truly appreciate your efforts, but I no longer wish for you to jeopardize your reputation defending me.

+

::With that said, I have absolutely no problem following rules. And should I run afoul of those rules, I have no particular qualms with accepting the ramifications of my actions. What I do take issue with is when those rules are not applied universally. In my brief tenure on Conservapedia, I have seen editors routinely insult each other's faith, intelligence, and political ideologies. I have seen editors address each other in disrespectful, mocking, and boastful tones. I have even witnessed an editor threaten another with physical violence (jokingly I'm sure). Yet, none of those incidents met with even a stern warning, much less a block of any duration. Yet engaging in similar (though milder, IMO) banter on my part is routinely met with blocks.

+

::Again, thanks! --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 18:47, 3 March 2013 (EST)

+

::@DamianJohn - I'm not blocking people for incivility because I think that they have hurt the feeling of Conservative or any other editor. I'm banning them because such behavior disrupts our goal of developing this encyclopedia, and is also against our site's rules. In regards to the particular debate in hand, whatever you think of his opinions, Conservative didn't utter a single insult during said debate on Talk:Socialism.

+

+

::While Andy's shortening of the Donny's block was a supposed to be a compromise between all sides, I think it validated my position more than yours. If Andy had thought that the time during which Donny was blocked was more than enough, he would have revoked the block completely, and yet he didn't. It seems to me like he was more on my side and merely shortened the block in order to appease you.

+

+

::About the North Pole affair... you and AlanA have a warped perspective of what happened. Karajou deleted the article after he found out it was a parody article, without any prompting from me. I merely put the delete template after the article was gone - why have a talk page for an article that no longer exists?

+

+

::The reason why I work so diligently on enforcing the guidelines are precisely because I want to contribute to our encyclopedia - I think the guidelines are one of the reasons this site is so great. Our rules help prevent the [[talk pollution]], bickering and liberal bias that prevail over all other wikis. Enforcing the rules is part of my contribution to Conservapedia.

+

+

::@DonnyC - in a minute or so I'm going to give you a separate reply on your talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:15, 4 March 2013 (EST)

+

+

:::('Scuse me, Damian....) Mark; first I am AlanE, Not AlanA. Second...If you count the words on this page from ''"::Again, thanks! --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 18:47, 3 March 2013 (EST)"'' above, you will see there are about 300 - about the same number as the words on Talk:North Pole over 52 months. That is on 21 edits - an average of one every 2 1/2 months! A little good will wouldn't go astray. Cheers. (Thanks Damian.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

+

::::The incivility rules do not apply to Conservative. Therefore it is only fair that the incivility rules do not apply to users interacting with Conservative.

+

::::You are also lying about what happened about the North Pole talk page. You wiped it with some pithy comment about not wanting to encourage unproductive work. So not only are you a bully, you are a liar. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:18, 4 March 2013 (EST)

+

:::::? I thought you were trying to be civil for a change? Anyway, yes I did remove the pun exchanges from talk:North Pole and at no point did I deny that. What I was talking about in my previous edit was not the removal of those exchanges, but what led to the temporary deletion of the talk page. After I removed the pun exchanges, Karajou decided to delete the North Pole article as he found out it was a parody article. After that I put the delete template on the talk page because it was now lacking an article.

+

+

:::::I don't read every edit Conservative makes so I don't know if there are any instances of him breaking civility laws. However, even if he does break it, this does not justify others doing the same. Incivility generally disrupts whatever productive conversation is going on, is against site's rules, and it's not like anything will happen to the editor/s that are being treated with incivility if they'll simply ignore it. Incivility is not excusable even when carried against previous incivility.

+

+

:::::Quite frankly I'm disappointed that you return to name calling after I thought we manged to establish some common ground. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:04, 4 March 2013 (EST)

+

::::::I'm sorry buddy but that is not true. You said above: " ''you and AlanA have a warped perspective of what happened. Karajou deleted the article after he found out it was a parody article, without any prompting from me. I merely put the delete template after the article was gone - why have a talk page for an article that no longer exists?''". Your statement is at significant variance with what happened, perhaps you were hoping that we hadn't noticed what you actually did.

+

::::::Anyway all this is immaterial, your job is to block obvious trolls and parodists, not enforce your rather warped interpretation of the 90/10 rule, not perform marginal blocks on constructive editors for trivial reasons, and above all else, not pick fights with people for absolutely no reason. If you don't want to read Conservative and others engage in debate then don't read it. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 16:47, 4 March 2013 (EST)

+

:::::::"I'm sorry buddy but that is not true." Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about. If you look at AlanE's talk page you'll find out I said to him the exact same thing I just told you on the very day the whole thing with North Pole happened. Was I trying to obviously lie to him about something he had just witnessed?

+

+

:::::::"If you don't want to read Conservative and others engage in debate then don't read it." You either misunderstood what I was saying or you're deliberately trying to use straw man arguments against me. I never said that I "don't want to read Conservative and others engage in debate" I merely said that I hadn't read all that he has written and that regardless it doesn't matter, incivility in retaliation toward previous incivility is still incivility. Notice how you didn't even reply to that point, probably because you can't.

+

+

:::::::"your job is to block obvious trolls and parodists, not enforce your rather warped interpretation of the 90/10 rule, not perform marginal blocks on constructive editors for trivial reasons, and above all else, not pick fights with people for absolutely no reason." I already replied to you about it, go read it once more.

+

+

:::::::Anyway don't bother replying to me as this debate is futile and it just seems like you want to continue arguing with me for no good reason. I won't give you that pleasure and I'm not going to waste my time on this. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)

+

::::::::There is no need to block every person you think is marginally incivil or marginally in breach of some pedantic rule. For a start that isn't your job and more importantly all it does is drive away contributors, and this place is short of contributors. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:13, 4 March 2013 (EST)

+

:::::::::Here, read this. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Assistants]] '''"As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response."''' Now try to follow the rules. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:18, 4 March 2013 (EST)

+

::::::::::Andy is the ultimate authority on this website, meaning that he can make exceptions to the laws. His only criticism of my blocks was for not using the right warning when banning users who violate our policy on usernames, meaning that he's OK with everything else I do. Anyway, from looking at some of the blocks you have given, it is clear that you are not acting as an emergency sysop either. My two favorite examples are DonnyC (oh the irony!) and AugustO, but these are far from the only ones. BTW, if you'll look at some of the blocks given by your friends AlanE and Dvergne, you'll notice that they too are far from acting as emergency sysops. Why won't you go and chastise them a little?

+

+

::::::::::I really shouldn't have replied to you but I just find the irony in your previous edit hilarious. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 13:05, 5 March 2013 (EST)

+

+

== Block Rights ==

+

+

What does it take to get them? [[User:AdeH|AdeH]] 00:37, 7 March 2013 (EST)

+

:Asking for Block rights is generally the worst way to go about getting them. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:48, 7 March 2013 (EST)

+

+

==Thanks for blocking him==

+

+

that darkbludd was a pain to deal with--DavidS 20:27, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 18:27, 11 April 2013

Hi Damian, you joined conservapedia before me however let me welcome you!
The reason I post here is to let you know, as you created the page, that I made some changes to the Destiny Church page.
Just a heads up! God bless.JJacob 22:14, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Got your message. A few people argue with some of my edits too, although I do try to go by what the better historians have to say.

World history guide

The basics are just about done, huh?--JamesWilson 18:18, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Yeah we have done pretty well. I'm gonna keep adding to the more advanced stuff when I get spare time. It is hard to get into a sentence or two basic information and something interesting as well. I have learnt a few things (eg I thought the Huns were from Germany - apparently not). --DamianJohn 22:53, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Yeah. I'll help you with that soon.--JamesWilson 22:54, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Tonight

Final of the Tri-Nations. Kiwi in Oz makes me nervous Aortuso 22:40, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes indeed. I think we should be too strong but you never know with those wily Aussies. Hosea Gear unlucky to miss out but still a pretty good team. --DamianJohn 23:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Extra privileges granted

Congratulations, the additional privileges of blocking and rolling back have been added to your account!--Andy Schlafly 16:11, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Courtesy and decorum

Please do not pick fights with other contributors. After you've made your point, move on. Rob Smith is an old friend. --Ed PoorTalk 22:15, 2 February 2012 (EST)

I am sorry Ed that you feel I have picked a fight with Rob. I do not think that is a fair appraisal of the situation. Rob and I have had a love/hate relationship for perhaps as long as you have, and he is well aware that his continual insulting of me and my country was inappropriate behaviour for THIS site. The matter has been dealt with and I am not entirely sure why you have chosen to fan the flames more. In any case I shall assume that you act in good faith and will let the matter drop; confused as I am by your input. --DamianJohn 00:22, 3 February 2012 (EST)

April 2012

Thank you for your contributions here at Conservapedia. May I ask, what inspired this? DMorris 01:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Yes of course. It was this edit by Andy Schlafly. There was some doubt raised subsequently about the correct interpretation of that posting, and although I personally was sceptical about Andy's claim, I thought it was appropriate that the views of the site leader and owner be reflected with the articles. We are, as I'm sure you appreciate, here merely at the leisure of the site owner. Our role is to facilitate the articulation of those views, whether we personally agree with them or not. --DamianJohn 17:26, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Well-deserved promotion

Context-free grammar

Hi Damian,
You commented recently that Context-free grammar was currently a "a list of gobbledygook" (I agree with your comments).

I just about finished working on Chomsky hierarchy, which involves the same sort of things as Context-free grammar. Could I ask you to have a look at Chomsky hierarchy and let me know if it is perhaps a little more accessible to the average reader (any constructive comments are welcome). If you are happy with my style and level of writing, then I intend to turn my hand to rewriting Context-free grammar in a similar vein. RolandPlankton 15:15, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

Looks good to me. Well done. I have been very busy the past few weeks so I haven't been around. --DamianJohn 21:32, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

NathanG

I unblocked this user because I was looking through his last 10 contributions or so, and couldn't figure out why he'd been blocked.[1]

Those are all pretty solid proofreading contributions for his last 20 contributions or so. I looked further and still can't see that he even made any particularly controversial edits. If so, can you point where they are at? I haven't heard anything from this NathanG person and have no idea if they're still around, I just was looking at people recently blocked to make sure the blocks were appropriate. I couldn't see anything indicating a proper block here.

You said "he is a self admitted liberal parodist." Well, whether that's true I have no idea. I certainly saw no indication this was the case from the contributions. Instead all I saw was the mark of a solid proofreader who was interested in helping the site with its grammar. I value proofreading pretty highly myself, the edits impressed me, frankly. And even if you were right that he's a liberal parodist, I thought we didn't ban off of ideology alone anyway, right? According to the guidelines?[26] I mean, we have debate pages so those who disagree can be talked with, right? Otherwise, what would be the point of just letting one side debate all the time?

Anyway, can you show me some sign the initial ban was appropriate? A BIG FACTOR for me was that the person who blocked him, TK, is now blocked[27], which made me really question whether the current block was still appropriate. --Joshua Zambrano 07:44, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

I have no idea what he could've done, to make you so angry at him, but just based on what I've seen from the proofreading contributions he's made, unless it was some really serious vandalism that he committed to get banned, I still think he should be given another shot. Those are pretty solid, un-controversial edits that make perfect sense to me. And the editor who blocked him is banned now anyway. You've got to admit, from my point of view, it makes a lot of sense to unblock him unless some really strong evidence shows up for why he got blocked in the first place. --Joshua Zambrano 07:51, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Anyway, I must be missing something here, there must be some evidence or reasoning I'm not seeing here, so I'll wait to hear back from you. Just help me understand why he got blocked in the first place, what he did wrong, and I'll agree with you the block was deserved if it was truly a serious offense. I've explained why I unblocked him, so if he did something to deserve the block, just tell me what it was and I'll just drop the issue. --Joshua Zambrano 07:59, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Wow. I just realized he was an ex-administrator just now. I just saw his block history, and saw he'd unblocked himself?[28] One thing that jumps out at me is that numerous people who had him blocked are now gone. Bugler and Fox were both blocked by TK. TK is banned. Philip J. Rayment says on his profile he's resigned. And BethanyS hasn't contributed since 2009. Jpatt unblocked him in the past saying he was blocked without reason. Ed Poor also unblocked him before but blocked him too. And Karajou just blocked him for 2 hour periods too.

So let me get this straight - a lot of the main people blocking him for long periods are now blocked themselves. His edits appear to have been pretty constructive lately.... And half the time it looks like he was blocking himself. I'm really confused. It looks like from the block summaries like it might've had something to do with personal comments. I can't figure out why he got blocked though. This is really confusing. --Joshua Zambrano 08:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

And why are Bugler and Fox blocked too? If TK is blocked, and he blocked them and NathanG - three different admins - then shouldn't we question whether his blocks were appropriate? I'd like to go back and re-examine this TK's blocks to make sure he didn't inappropriately have others blocked. --Joshua Zambrano 08:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

TK is not blocked out of choice, he has gone to pastures greener. In any case, the user you know as NathanG had a personal relationship with one of the senior admins, and I understand that relationship has now ended. You would be well advised not to interfere with NathanG's case. If he wants to come back he can go through the appropriate channels.

Can I suggest that you not go unblocking people from the past, you won't last long yourself. --DamianJohn 09:31, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Alright, well, I had no idea what I wandered into with this. I suppose if NathanG wants to be unblocked they can contact someone about it. As for my unblocking people, I still believe most of the unblocks have been warranted.

If I don't last long, well, I don't last long. I write and edit as passionately as I do because I believe in what I'm doing. If I see people who shouldn't be blocked, I believe in trying to make things right, although as you can see, I have no intention of bypassing other moderators. I'm sure there are cases like this where I don't know what's going on, and thus if anyone dislikes an unblock, I'll discuss it out and try to understand what's going on. I have no intention of reverting any blocks by Andy or Conservative, period. I respect that it's his site and put his decisions foremost.

But as long as I've been given this block ability, I feel I have a responsibility to do what's right and make sure the right people have been blocked by other moderators, especially those like TK who are now banned. I can't just turn a blind eye and pretend bad blocks haven't happened. If the wrong people are blocked, it gives conservatives, Creationists, and Christians a bad name. It harms the entire site by preventing good people from helping make it better. Frankly, if I was the kind of person who just overlooked wrong things occurring, and didn't try to make things better, I'd still be at Wikipedia. --Joshua Zambrano 09:59, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

You don't know the context behind most of the blocks - for example, you seem to be unaware about what happened to TK. --DamianJohn 20:45, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

You're right. Like I said, I had no idea what I wandered into with this. But most of the blocks I reduced were not this controversial, I'd argue. That's why I appreciate you telling me that. Like I said, I'll just drop it over this NathanG issue. Still, I have to admit, I don't understand how TK can be as innocent as you say. Otherwise, why was it Andy who blocked him? That doesn't seem like somebody just leaving for greener pastures, but an offence serious enough to cause the site's owner to take action. Again though, I have no idea what's going on, and no idea if NathanG even wants to be unblocked, so I'm just dropping it at this time. I didn't realize I was opening up a can of worms. I'll have to be more careful and watch for users who might have more in-depth backgrounds from now on before unblocking. I should've looked a bit more carefully in NathanG's case. --Joshua Zambrano 22:00, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Don't unblock anybody, thats not your job. Blocking powers are really just to help with vandals, not to unilaterally enforce your sense of justice. --DamianJohn 22:40, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Spelling

The phrase above, "British spelling to English", caught my eye and reminded me that in your User Page you apologise in advance for any lapses into British English (or words to that effect.) This matter was had out in 2006 or seven. It was agreed that British English is quite acceptable if used by editors brought up with that spelling if the subject is non-American or general talk. I would no more fly than type "Pearl Harbour". By the same token, I expect Americans to type "Sydney Harbour" and I have found that the great majority do. (Or did back in my day.) Cheers... AlanE 23:23, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Mistake Edit

Thanks for reverting that edit of mine. Bdor25 wanted me to respond to an edit he'd made and I tried re-adding it, but had to go back to an old version of the page to find it.[29] I edited that and accidentally removed newer material, sorry about that. Anyway, I'll just discuss the concerns with Bdor25 on his talk page instead of the main page anyway. --Joshua Zambrano 01:33, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

My block

Hello, and I apologize for what seemed to be an edit war. I attempted to discuss the edits made to the page in question, but was consistently getting no responses, which gave me the impression that there was no further disagreement. KatieKomori 23:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)

This site has a POV. You might not like it, but the articles reflect that POV. Stop being a pratt. --DamianJohn 11:14, 1 December 2012 (EST)

Yes, I realize that. My only contest was that the statement "same-sex marriage is prohibited in 'most religions'" was inaccurate and needed citation. Don't most fact based assertions need citation as outlined in the commandments? KatieKomori 23:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Most do, that conservative interpretations of religious doctrines are homophobic does not. When you say "most" I think you must be referring to religions like Hindu and Buddhism and traditional folk religions. I have known plenty of Hindis in my time and most of them carried their homophibic religious doctrine on their sleeve. If you can find a reliable cite for me to read that would bring the general statement that most religions are homophobic into question then provide it here. --DamianJohn 19:19, 1 December 2012 (EST)

I can't believe that I've got the burden of proof on this =/ but whatevs, I'll see what I can find. KatieKomori 23:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)

I am interested to read what you find. I should also note that I also am not always entirely enamoured by the POV of this site, although I always try to stick to articles that are POV free and I try to toe the line on issues that are controversial. There is no point in getting worked up about this, it's just the nature of POV wikis. Where an issue is likely to be controversial, I suggest you tread with the utmost care. My short block and mild rebuke of you was partially an attempt to ensure you weren't dealt with more severely by other editors, who may have just blocked you permanently for edit warring with Andy. --DamianJohn 01:36, 3 December 2012 (EST)

So how exactly does this POV thing work? I'm just trying to understand. Do some things that align with that POV not need citation as much as things that are at odds with the POV? I figured that the POV meant that it would just focus on findings that support it, but I thought they still needed citation. I guess I'm just trying to figure out how this whole POV thing works in terms of citation. KatieKomori 10:19, 3 December 2012 (EST)

That's pretty much it. I dunno if its quite as brazen as that, but essentially things that conform to the POV require less stringent citations than those that do not. That's true in general by the way. The maxim "We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we're inclined to accept" is unfortunately extremely accurate. --DamianJohn 01:46, 4 December 2012 (EST)

That does not make for very reliable material...Just to be clear btw, I agree with a lot of the conservative ideology. I was hoping to help in the citation department of this site and help make for a more reliable conservative information resource. I wish there was room for us to further our conservative causes the honest way =/ KatieKomori 13:22, 4 December 2012 (EST)

(Obvious trolling)

It seems you have a history of picking fights with various users, please stop. It is also not very good practice to unblock yourself for such matters. Regards Dvergne 19:38, 1 December 2012 (EST)

It is perfectly fine when the block was done in bad faith. The issue about an edit to an article is being sorted out, and you are not helping. Who are you anyway? --DamianJohn 19:46, 1 December 2012 (EST)

The block was not done in bad faith, It was done to stop the incivility between you and KatieKomori including you calling her names. If you do not stop this behaviour I will block you again and raise this issue with Aschlafly Dvergne 20:06, 1 December 2012 (EST)

How about you raise the issue with Andy before you go around blocking longstanding contributors who are attempting to resolve an issue? In fact, why don't you go and bring it up with him right now? Either way I don't care. My posts were perfectly reasonable given the situation, and you are acting very much in bad faith. You don't fool anybody buddy. --DamianJohn 20:14, 1 December 2012 (EST)

For someone acting in good faith, you are using rather belligerent words. Chill bro. brenden 23:05, 1 December 2012 (EST)

Thank you for your input Brenden. I consider the matter closed. If you want to contribute to the solving of the dispute regarding the nature of relgious attitudes to homosexuality, I would encourage you to do so, either on the talk page itself or in the section above this one. --DamianJohn 23:29, 1 December 2012 (EST

Damian: I found that last edit positively Kennish. But well done against Sri Lanka by the way - and we won't mention the Rugby. AlanE 01:34, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Yes well, these things happen. As you can imagine it is pretty rare that our cricket team wins on the same day as our rugby team loses. As for sounding Kennish, well no comment, except to say that I entered into an edit war, resolved it, gave a mild rebuke to the person involved, proposed a solution, and then was blocked and accused of all sorts of nonsense by some guy whose been here all of 5 minutes. Now if people want to comment on the issue involved, fine, but coming to my page and looking to pick a fight is annoying. --DamianJohn 02:00, 2 December 2012 (EST)

As you say: yes well. We have managed three in a row for a change - four if you count that draw - but we will not mention the cricket! I do sorta understand on the other thing. AlanE 02:11, 2 December 2012 (EST)

A magnificent fighting double century from Ponting to win the test in the last over of day 5? Oh ye of little faith. --DamianJohn 02:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)

There was a time. Not now. I prefer to be pleasantly surprised than to be disappointed. There is no greater admirer of Ponting than I am. But 50-odd years of passionate watching, thinking, talking and suffering over the Game, (a lot of it, the watching at least, from the front of the top tier of the Noble Stand at the SCG over about 30 years of membership,) have taught me to be pessimistic. And you have to realise that I spent two days at Bellerive about this time last year. Ah, the shame of it!! AlanE 02:46, 2 December 2012 (EST)

I did what you asked for.

J.

Good, I hope you will be a productive member of the group. Which one were you? --DamianJohn 21:12, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Reason for your block

The reason I ave you a 1 hour block was for blocking User:funforever who, whilst having a name that does not conform to the naming system, had made quite a number of useful contributions. I do hope YOU relise that actions such as this drive away useful contributors to the site. Dvergne 22:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

You may, of course, have discussed this problem with Damian, but that is not the way to go, is it? AlanE 22:45, 6 January 2013 (EST)

I don't know about you, but this guy reminds me of a few other unsavoury editors from days past. --DamianJohn 23:19, 6 January 2013 (EST)

I am glad someone else feels it. 02:07, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Sounds a bit like a trumpet player to me. --DamianJohn 02:21, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Actually no. More sinister. He doesn't "feel" English. Certainly not North Country, which B was. Is. I think. He feels German. Right wing German. Old Prussian We Are the Master Race German. (And I will grovel appropriately if wrong.) I haven't had time today to look closely at all the edits because of the bushfires, but I will. AlanE 03:18, 7 January 2013 (EST)

trolling/parody

I am writing you because of your helpful comments on Talk:Main_Page#CBO_just_released_estimates_on_the_.22Fiscal_Cliff.22_Deal.
That user has gone on to add inaccurate information on a number of articles dealing with the US budget process. He took an accurate article on "spending authority" which last edited in 2008 and redirected it to an article that he had just written called "backdoor spending authority", when I restored the article, he started a thread at User_talk:Aschlafly#Spending_authority_vs_Backdoor_spending_authority and got the redirect protected. He has gone on to make a number of very inaccurate statements, such as that Presidents do not sign/veto "continuing resolutions" and that the President has not submitted a budget. He confuses spending authority with borrowing authority, etc. This matter requires the attention of senior editors. Thanks, Wschact 13:09, 12 January 2013 (EST)

I have had suspicions about that user since he made some additions to the LBJ article that were well over the top. After I questioned those additions they received the approval of a senior admin, which kind of shows my place around here. I will take a look and see what I can do. I must say that I am no expert on the inner workings of the US government. --DamianJohn 16:10, 12 January 2013 (EST)

More Trolling

Hi Damian.

I have to say I'm quite at a loss for why you recently banned me from editing for a day with an explanation of 'trolling'. Let's look at the events:

1) In August 2012 I expanded this article from what was basically a stub

2) Between December 24th and January 5th Andy Schlafly removed/altered two innocuous examples without explanation (or at least with only the spurious explanation of 'punctuation')

3) On 27 Jan I reinstated the deleted examples, providing evidence for why they were relevant

4) On the same day you reverted my changes, still without explanation, and banned me form editing for 24 hours

So which of us is exhibiting troll-like behaviour? --DHouser 10:29, 29 January 2013 (EST)

Thanks

Thanks for the spelling revert, Damian. As one who has been here since 2007, you would think he'd know. AlanE 19:57, 5 February 2013 (EST)

I can be persuaded on the spelling business, but the more important point was that there was a lot of important wikification in the edit that should not have been reverted. --DamianJohn 20:34, 5 February 2013 (EST)

Yes, I did see that. It was a lazy edit. A scatter-gun approach.

(PJR had a good comment when reverting US spelling: "Reverting your correct English to my correct English". I thought this had been cleared up in 2007 or 8. Certainly I have not had much trouble recently, and on those rare occasions someone has gone all American on me they have not complained at my revert.) AlanE 21:59, 5 February 2013 (EST)

The only thing that concerns me is that you are beginning to sound a bit obsessed. In the big scheme of things it isn't really a big deal that some article on theoretical physics is a bit off. It won't ever change. Andy won't permit that. You keep going on and on assuming that Andy can be swayed by this piece of evidence or that but that relies on a faulty assumption. Andy doesn't care about evidence, he is only interested in what he knows, and he physically can't know anything that contradicts his world view. Don't blame Andy, it is just the way that he is. For whatever reason his mind is completely closed to anything that might be at odds with his truths. That "e=mc2 is liberal claptrap" is just one of those truths. Move onto something else. --DamianJohn 15:56, 14 February 2013 (EST)

My mate Oscar

Had occasion to listen to a great New Zealander today. I have 6 or 7 versions of this on my shelves but Oscar's is still my favourite. See Peter Warlock.

Umm cheers. And I was at the ODI. People have been saying that T20 will be the death of the ODI but I don't think so. At least I hope not. --DamianJohn 21:51, 17 February 2013 (EST)

There was a time when the 50-over format got on my goat. These days I tend to have seen the error of my ways. A year or three ago ago Ponting and Clarke came together at 3 for not very much and "built an innings". They grafted and struggled and ran the quick singles and found themselves out of the woods. I found appreciation of the format. (Still a Test bloke though.) AlanE 22:06, 17 February 2013 (EST)

I tend to be in the distinct minority these days in that I believe the ODI is the best format. I definitely like my tests, particularly the fact that they ebb and flow over a period of 5 days (3 for New Zealand) but its too hard to watch much of them. T20's I find incredibly dull and silly. You simply can't compare a bit of slash dash with all the drama and intrigue of a gripping second innings like yesterdays. ODI is definitely our best format, although I note we are still ranked 8th in them. --DamianJohn 22:14, 17 February 2013 (EST)

It would be interesting to see how a dual T20 (2 innings each, basically ODI/T20 hybrid) international would play out. Dvergne 22:30, 17 February 2013 (EST)

Didn't you guys try that out in your domestic 50 overs competition a few years back? How did it work? --DamianJohn 23:24, 17 February 2013 (EST)

Thanks mate

DJ, I genuinely do appreciate the fact that you defended me. The funny thing is that I never even realized that I had been blocked before, until that particular conversation on Andy's talk page popped up! I had no clue. Honestly, I can see how some editors here could consider my actions as "trolling", but I believe this may be due to the way I approach "controversial" issues.

It's not very hard to get out of people WHAT they believe, the trick is figuring out WHY they think that way. So, I have no problem with admins editing entries to include what they believe, but when they don't include the reasons why... it gets my hackles up. I guess everybody has their weaknesses. --DonnyC 05:19, 18 February 2013 (EST)

No worries. I agree with that sometimes senior people here post things that they haven't really considered properly. No need to go overboard on it though, which might have been why you were banned for so long. --DamianJohn 05:57, 18 February 2013 (EST)

DonnyC

The offending edit in question is this. This kind of relatively mild snark would get a first time offender a warning only, but Donny is no first time offender. Already before the recent block he managed to incur five blocks for activities such as trolling, rudeness toward others, 90/10 rule violation and spamming. Notice that even you agreed with me one time that his behavior was block worthy (see the blocks Donny received on February 16). The fact that you did not revoke his block but merely shortened it suggests that your disagreement with me was not about whether or not Donny's behavior was blockowrthy, but only about the length of the block. In light of his past behavior, the only problem I have with the current block is that it's too short. - Markman 03:58, 27 February 2013 (EST)

That edit is fine. Nothing even remotely wrong with it. They are having a discussion about the correct translation of a particular Hebrew word and Donny has added to it. My shortening of his block should not be read as meaning that I agreed with it even slightly. You appear to have something of a vendetta against DonnyC, and I don't know why, nor do I care. --DamianJohn 04:18, 27 February 2013 (EST)

This conversation is over, I have nothing more to say to you after that moronic block you gave me. - Markman 04:30, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Good. I want nothing to do with a bully like you. --DamianJohn 04:32, 27 February 2013 (EST)

re:DonnyC

Wait, am I seeing what I think I'm seeing? DamianJohn? On my talk page? I thought he didn't want anything to do with a bully like me... Anyway, Donny earned his ban fair and square. He used a direct insult against Conservative by calling him a conglomerate and accusing him of being deceitful and pretentious. Seeing that he has been given in the past several different blocks from several different users (all blocks were found to be justified), and seeing that I gave him a warning about his incivility before the recent block, a month long ban is quite justified.

However, I'm a willing to make a deal with you. Since I gather you might have more influence on Donny than me, I won't reinstate his ban the next time you overturn it if you'll warn him about engaging in any further acts of incivility. So long as he'll behave he won't need to fear me, but one violation of the rules of the encyclopedia will get him a lifetime ban.

And finally, so far the only complaint Andy had about the blocks I have given was this, so I guess I'm doing my job just fine. - Markman 16:15, 3 March 2013 (EST)

The point is that Conservative is a bit of a playful sysop who enjoys a bit of cut and thrust in argument. He insults people and people insult him back, no harm no foul. If this place were as sterile and as lifeless as you seem to want to make it, even less people would edit here than they currently do. Besides, DonnyC was correct, Conservatives arguments were unsubstantiated non sequitors.

The even larger point however is that you are interfering in a conversation that does not concern you. Conservative is perfectly capable of blocking Donny if he took offence - you are not the moral arbiter of what is right and wrong with the world.

On your last point about Andy being happy with your blocks, well he did shorten your last block of Donny to almost nothing, and Karajou fortunately overruled your last attempt at killjoy over the North Pole puns (another example of you picking a fight for no good reason). It may be that you are not as good at picking up on subtext as you think you are.

Why don't you just relax and not worry at all about things that do not concern you? You keep editing the bible project or whatever it is you like to do, I will keep editing my legal articles when I get a chance and save everyone the aggravation of all these threats which serve no good purpose whatsoever. I think you are reading the guidelines far too literally and strictly. People will only edit here if the environment is enjoyable, and for some reason you seem determined to make the place as unpleasant for everyone as you possibly can. I will have another word with DonnyC if you like. --DamianJohn 16:35, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Thank you, DamianJohn, for once again taking up my defense. I truly appreciate your efforts, but I no longer wish for you to jeopardize your reputation defending me.

With that said, I have absolutely no problem following rules. And should I run afoul of those rules, I have no particular qualms with accepting the ramifications of my actions. What I do take issue with is when those rules are not applied universally. In my brief tenure on Conservapedia, I have seen editors routinely insult each other's faith, intelligence, and political ideologies. I have seen editors address each other in disrespectful, mocking, and boastful tones. I have even witnessed an editor threaten another with physical violence (jokingly I'm sure). Yet, none of those incidents met with even a stern warning, much less a block of any duration. Yet engaging in similar (though milder, IMO) banter on my part is routinely met with blocks.

@DamianJohn - I'm not blocking people for incivility because I think that they have hurt the feeling of Conservative or any other editor. I'm banning them because such behavior disrupts our goal of developing this encyclopedia, and is also against our site's rules. In regards to the particular debate in hand, whatever you think of his opinions, Conservative didn't utter a single insult during said debate on Talk:Socialism.

While Andy's shortening of the Donny's block was a supposed to be a compromise between all sides, I think it validated my position more than yours. If Andy had thought that the time during which Donny was blocked was more than enough, he would have revoked the block completely, and yet he didn't. It seems to me like he was more on my side and merely shortened the block in order to appease you.

About the North Pole affair... you and AlanA have a warped perspective of what happened. Karajou deleted the article after he found out it was a parody article, without any prompting from me. I merely put the delete template after the article was gone - why have a talk page for an article that no longer exists?

The reason why I work so diligently on enforcing the guidelines are precisely because I want to contribute to our encyclopedia - I think the guidelines are one of the reasons this site is so great. Our rules help prevent the talk pollution, bickering and liberal bias that prevail over all other wikis. Enforcing the rules is part of my contribution to Conservapedia.

@DonnyC - in a minute or so I'm going to give you a separate reply on your talk page. - Markman 11:15, 4 March 2013 (EST)

('Scuse me, Damian....) Mark; first I am AlanE, Not AlanA. Second...If you count the words on this page from "::Again, thanks! --DonnyC 18:47, 3 March 2013 (EST)" above, you will see there are about 300 - about the same number as the words on Talk:North Pole over 52 months. That is on 21 edits - an average of one every 2 1/2 months! A little good will wouldn't go astray. Cheers. (Thanks Damian.)AlanE 14:42, 4 March 2013 (EST)

The incivility rules do not apply to Conservative. Therefore it is only fair that the incivility rules do not apply to users interacting with Conservative.

You are also lying about what happened about the North Pole talk page. You wiped it with some pithy comment about not wanting to encourage unproductive work. So not only are you a bully, you are a liar. --DamianJohn 15:18, 4 March 2013 (EST)

? I thought you were trying to be civil for a change? Anyway, yes I did remove the pun exchanges from talk:North Pole and at no point did I deny that. What I was talking about in my previous edit was not the removal of those exchanges, but what led to the temporary deletion of the talk page. After I removed the pun exchanges, Karajou decided to delete the North Pole article as he found out it was a parody article. After that I put the delete template on the talk page because it was now lacking an article.

I don't read every edit Conservative makes so I don't know if there are any instances of him breaking civility laws. However, even if he does break it, this does not justify others doing the same. Incivility generally disrupts whatever productive conversation is going on, is against site's rules, and it's not like anything will happen to the editor/s that are being treated with incivility if they'll simply ignore it. Incivility is not excusable even when carried against previous incivility.

Quite frankly I'm disappointed that you return to name calling after I thought we manged to establish some common ground. - Markman 16:04, 4 March 2013 (EST)

I'm sorry buddy but that is not true. You said above: " you and AlanA have a warped perspective of what happened. Karajou deleted the article after he found out it was a parody article, without any prompting from me. I merely put the delete template after the article was gone - why have a talk page for an article that no longer exists?". Your statement is at significant variance with what happened, perhaps you were hoping that we hadn't noticed what you actually did.

Anyway all this is immaterial, your job is to block obvious trolls and parodists, not enforce your rather warped interpretation of the 90/10 rule, not perform marginal blocks on constructive editors for trivial reasons, and above all else, not pick fights with people for absolutely no reason. If you don't want to read Conservative and others engage in debate then don't read it. --DamianJohn 16:47, 4 March 2013 (EST)

"I'm sorry buddy but that is not true." Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about. If you look at AlanE's talk page you'll find out I said to him the exact same thing I just told you on the very day the whole thing with North Pole happened. Was I trying to obviously lie to him about something he had just witnessed?

"If you don't want to read Conservative and others engage in debate then don't read it." You either misunderstood what I was saying or you're deliberately trying to use straw man arguments against me. I never said that I "don't want to read Conservative and others engage in debate" I merely said that I hadn't read all that he has written and that regardless it doesn't matter, incivility in retaliation toward previous incivility is still incivility. Notice how you didn't even reply to that point, probably because you can't.

"your job is to block obvious trolls and parodists, not enforce your rather warped interpretation of the 90/10 rule, not perform marginal blocks on constructive editors for trivial reasons, and above all else, not pick fights with people for absolutely no reason." I already replied to you about it, go read it once more.

Anyway don't bother replying to me as this debate is futile and it just seems like you want to continue arguing with me for no good reason. I won't give you that pleasure and I'm not going to waste my time on this. - Markman 17:06, 4 March 2013 (EST)

There is no need to block every person you think is marginally incivil or marginally in breach of some pedantic rule. For a start that isn't your job and more importantly all it does is drive away contributors, and this place is short of contributors. --DamianJohn 17:13, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Here, read this. [[30]] "As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response." Now try to follow the rules. --DamianJohn 17:18, 4 March 2013 (EST)

Andy is the ultimate authority on this website, meaning that he can make exceptions to the laws. His only criticism of my blocks was for not using the right warning when banning users who violate our policy on usernames, meaning that he's OK with everything else I do. Anyway, from looking at some of the blocks you have given, it is clear that you are not acting as an emergency sysop either. My two favorite examples are DonnyC (oh the irony!) and AugustO, but these are far from the only ones. BTW, if you'll look at some of the blocks given by your friends AlanE and Dvergne, you'll notice that they too are far from acting as emergency sysops. Why won't you go and chastise them a little?

I really shouldn't have replied to you but I just find the irony in your previous edit hilarious. - Markman 13:05, 5 March 2013 (EST)